In Mr. Samuels' case, it began April 22, 1997, when Ms. Hope opened a Child Support Services case that named Mr. Samuels the father of her child.

Mr. Samuels said he never had any reason to doubt the child was his. He signed the birth certificate, and he consented to an order to pay child support.

Mr. Wallace told the judge at a hearing last summer that he heard from different people that the child looked like him. The child called him daddy when she saw him in town, Mr. Wallace said.

Mr. Wallace said he told Ms. Hope he would take care of the child financially if he was the biological father. They decided to get a DNA test last summer, Mr. Wallace said.

The DNA test proved Mr. Wallace was the biological father, and he filed a court petition to legally establish paternity. The case was assigned to Judge Roper, who had no problem with signing the order that established legal paternity. But he said he was troubled by the position in which it left Mr. Samuels.

The judge questioned Mr. Wallace and Ms. Hope about when they first suspected Mr. Wallace was the biological father. Both eventually admitted it was around the time the child was 2.

"I've never heard (of) this gentleman until this year, and I never knew that she was seeing anyone else," Mr. Samuels told the judge last summer.

Ms. Hope told the judge she wanted a paternity test in 1997 when the baby was born but that Mr. Samuels declined. He denied that.

"You swore that he was the father when you took out a child support action," Judge Roper told Ms. Hope. He said he considered that action fraudulent and ordered Ms. Hope to repay Mr. Samuels the $14,460 he had paid in child support payments.

In February, Judge Roper ruled Mr. Wallace was liable to Mr. Samuels for the back child support, too. Judge Roper said in explaining his ruling that once paternity is established, a father can be required to pay back support to the time of birth. Since Mr. Wallace's paternity was established, he was responsible for the child support since the birth in 1997, and responsible for repaying Mr. Samuels.

Ms. Jarrett said that when a child support case is opened, the man identified as a child's father can request a DNA test. If the test comes back negative, the case against that man is closed. If it is positive, then paternity is established and Child Support Services works to obtain a court order for child support.

A man can also petition the court directly to request a legal determination of paternity, which is what Mr. Wallace did.

Paternity establishes who is responsible for the financial support of a child. If a father also desires visitation rights, he must legitimize the child, too, Judge Roper said. Although Child Support Services cannot help with visitation issues, the office can refer parents to mediation.

Child Support Services will help fathers with employment issues. It operates the Georgia Fatherhood Program to provide job counseling, training, educational assistance, placement assistance and other services. In Georgia, 25 percent of children have a case with the Child Support Services, according to the state Department of Human Resources.

Judge David Roper said he felt badly for Kenneth Samuels when he learned the child he had fathered for 11 years wasn't his.

"You swore that he was the father when you took out a child support action," Judge Roper told Ms. Hope. He said he considered that action fraudulent and ordered Ms. Hope to repay Mr. Samuels the $14,460 he had paid in child support payments.

This happened in a Georgia court? This reversal is truly a miracle of God. Now if we could only get the mother jailed for fraud. Until then, if she is late on a payment, a warrant for her arrest should be issued just as easily as it was for the plaintiff all those years.

Yes, it’s good BUT I don’t think the outcome would have been the same if not for the fact of another man coming forward to claim paternity and take responsibility. The state’s interest is to have somebody - anybody - on the hook for support of the child rather than have to be the one to provide it. If not for the other guy coming forward, the state likely would have forced the other guy to keep paying, even if he proved he wasn’t the biological father. JMO.

I agree 110%! A premise on one of my papers in college. That if a woman has the right to terminate her motherhood and by de facto his fatherhood then a man should have the same choice as to whether or not he provide support for his offspring. I definitly don’t condone abortion at all but it really worked up all those females in my class to think that they might have to think about exercising their choice or not receiving a payment for their “services” until the aftermath was 18 years old. “I ain’t sayin she a gold digga, but she ain’t messin with no broke fellas!” Kanye West.

Now if we could only get the mother jailed for fraud A friend of my wife dumped her husband of 10 years when she fell for her daughters school teacher. She got a divorce and alimony and then married the teacher but is keeping it a secret for the $3,000 per month alimony. For 4 years now that is a chunk of change that some day will be found out and they will be forced into bankruptcy and maybe jail time for lying to a judge.

17
posted on 03/04/2008 9:43:31 AM PST
by SF Republican
(Conservatives wanted all or nothing, and they got it.)

That’s my take as well. I’ll add that most men I know would be very happy to have their children without having to spend $50k to get them, and could care less if the mother provided a dimes worth of support.

got a divorce and alimony and then married the teacher but is keeping it a secret for the $3,000 per month alimony.

If you know about it, then it's no secret. Marriage records are public info. Why wouldn't your friend get a copy and take it to court? If this has been going on for four years now, there must be more to your story.

23
posted on 03/04/2008 10:03:40 AM PST
by scan59
(Let consumers dictate market policies. Government just gets in the way.)

Ya kinda gotta give kudos to the bio father - he didn’t have to step forward and initiate a paternal test to prove the child was his...and part of the reason he gave was that he felt bad that the other man had to be paying for a child that wasn’t his ... the man whose been paying all these years, willingly signed on for it in the beginning.

Sounds like the only ‘culprit’ here is the mother....and the child at least had two men willing to step up instead of screaming ‘that ain’t MY kid.’

24
posted on 03/04/2008 10:07:24 AM PST
by maine-iac7
(",,,but you can't fool all of the people all the time" LINCOLN)

Her ex is not my friend, I have never met him, I too wonder why he does not check the records at city hall, if I was paying $36,000 per year, I darn well would check them regularly.
I think it is a pretty good secret, her 12 year old daughter does not even know about the marriage, my wife and I (and the couple) may very well be the only ones that know. Certainly as with any story there is more to it but I do not know what facts that I know to add.

25
posted on 03/04/2008 10:14:20 AM PST
by SF Republican
(Conservatives wanted all or nothing, and they got it.)

When my ex-wife split from her prior husband the courts were amazed he didn’t insist on a paternity test before agreeing to pay child support. In fact they actively discouraged him from making the decision.

Courts rule on a “situational” basis. And any number of factors can come into play to influence a judge’s ruling. In more cases than anyone would like to admit, a judge will hand down an adverse ruling against a person because that judge knows that the person affected does not have the financial means to appeal it. All of which makes rulings at law arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable. “Respect for the law” is increasingly difficult as a result. The result in this case seems to be just and fair, but no one should think that the very same judge would rule the same way if, for example, there were no other man present and available to take responsibility.

How does one keep a marriage a secret from the court? - My best guess (and it is only a guess) would be that divorce judges do not have staff check the records of each case they have been on to see if someone got married. Unless someone brings it to the courts attention, why would they review the case?

33
posted on 03/04/2008 12:07:20 PM PST
by SF Republican
(Conservatives wanted all or nothing, and they got it.)

Unless someone brings it to the courts attention, why would they review the case?

I assume the ex did not know his ex-wife had remarried, but that seems strange. (I guess it is possible as long as they didn't have any kids, or as long as the kids never talked to him or saw their mother.)

If he knew about the marriage, he should have told the court.

35
posted on 03/04/2008 12:13:30 PM PST
by MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)

If he knew about the marriage, he should have told the court - That is the reason it is secret, they are getting $3,000 a month alimony, if they guy knew she was married and he could keep that money, I assume he would tell the court. They do have two children but the children do not know their mother remarried.

36
posted on 03/04/2008 12:24:38 PM PST
by SF Republican
(Conservatives wanted all or nothing, and they got it.)

I have no idea where he lives or even what his name is.
I do believe what goes around comes around and one day, sooner or later, as with most secrets, the cat will come out of the bag and there will be a (high) price to pay by the culprits.

38
posted on 03/04/2008 12:34:09 PM PST
by SF Republican
(Conservatives wanted all or nothing, and they got it.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.